Batavia school board disciplines teacher after Fifth Amendment survey flap

I went through public school here, and never suffered through anything worse than the general pettiness that is endemic to teachers and school administrators. There are problems with the American school system, but these outliers are not those problems. Heck, I remember in high school there was a huge protest over attempts to introduce minimum dress standards (e.g. no wife beater shirts, no spaghetti straps) in which the teachers participated in the protest.

And I don't see how this is an example of kids being "manipulated." At best this is an example of a school district not consulting its lawyer before giving a well-intentioned survey. The purpose was to try and identify kids who needed additional psychological support, not get kids to cop to their drug use so they could be prosecuted.

And you know what? It's not even clear the teacher was factually correct here. The school administrator argued that once the surveys were filled out, they would become student records (which are protected by a law called FERPA). I haven't done a close analysis of the issue, but if FERPA kept the documents from being obtained by the police, there was no 5th amendment privilege against incrimination because there was no real and tangible threat of disciplinary action. Moreover, there was no "custody" by the police which would invoke certain requirements for the purposes of the 5th amendment.

At best, the teacher was teaching his speculation about what is still unsettled law as actual fact about the 5th amendment.

1. FERPA information can be released in a "health" or "safety" emergency.

2. Records created by a designated official for the purpose of referring violations to police are not subject to FERPA.

3. Institutions have relatively broad power to designate people as school officials with legitimate educational interests, and thereby to designate who may receive FERPA-protected records. Some sources recommend to schools that they designate police or security personnel as "school officials with legitimate educational interests" for this reason [a].

a = http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel/University-Secur...

Citation needed.

Regarding privacy concerns:

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht10-28-02...

In specific:

Sec. 1061 Student Privacy, Parental Access to Information, and Administration of Certain Physical Examinations to Minors.

The No Child Left Behind Act contains a major amendment to PPRA that gives parents more rights with regard to the surveying of minor students, the collection of information from students for marketing purposes, and certain non-emergency medical examinations. PPRA has been referred to as the "Hatch Amendment" and the "Grassley Amendment" after authors of amendments to the law. Now, school officials may hear the law referred to as the "Tiahrt Amendment" after Congressman Todd Tiahrt, who introduced the changes regarding surveys to the PPRA. The statute is found in 20 U.S.C. § 1232h and the regulations (not yet updated) are found in 34 CFR Part 98.

U.S. Department of Education Surveys

Subsection (a) of the legislation was not changed. Subsection (b) added an additional category (see bold below) and made minor changes to the existing seven categories. This provision applies to surveys funded in whole or part by any program administered by the U. S. Department of Education (ED). PPRA provides:

-that schools and contractors make instructional materials available for inspection by parents if those materials will be used in connection with an ED-funded survey, analysis, or evaluation in which their children participate; and

-that schools and contractors obtain prior written parental consent before minor students are required to participate in any ED-funded survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning:

1.political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the student's parent;

2.mental and psychological problems of the student or the student's family;

3.sex behavior or attitudes;

4.illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior;

5.critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;

6.legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers;

7.religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student's parent; or

8.income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).

Subsections a and b of PPRA generally apply when a survey is funded, at least in part, by any program administered by the Secretary of Education.

Can written parental consent be twisted to mean silent consent from not replying to an email? I remember a cookie law in EU that had some harsh consent requirement being turned to mean "silent consent by continue staying on the website". Maybe the act of letting the kid continue go to school was interpreted as consent.